linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] softlockup: make detector be aware of task switch of processes hogging cpu

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 18 Aug 2014 21:02:00 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	pbonzini@...hat.com, mingo@...hat.com,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	chai wen <chaiw.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] softlockup: make detector be aware of task switch of
 processes hogging cpu


* Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com> wrote:

> > > > So I agree with the motivation of this improvement, but 
> > > > is this implementation namespace-safe?
> > > 
> > > What namespace are you worried about colliding with?  I 
> > > thought softlockup_ would provide the safety??  Maybe I 
> > > am missing something obvious. :-(
> > 
> > I meant PID namespaces - a PID in itself isn't guaranteed 
> > to be unique across the system.
> 
> Ah, I don't think we thought about that.  Is there a better 
> way to do this?  Is there a domain id or something that can 
> be OR'd with the pid?

What is always unique is the task pointer itself. We use pids 
when we interface with user-space - but we don't really do that 
here, right?

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/